In today’s New York Times, Jennifer Steinhauer notes the remarkable number of Congressmembers– more than 80–who are heading to Israel thanks to a program affiliated with AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobbying force.
Steinhauer sizes up the political backdrop– the White House has strained relations with the current Israeli government, and there’s more:
the Palestinians are weighing a request to the United Nations Security Council to support a bid for statehood, leaving Washington in the uncomfortable position of blocking such a unilateral move while supporting democracy movements in other Arab nations.
U.S. policy at the United Nations has historically been pro-Israel. There’s no debate about that. So it’s hard to see how this particular case would be “uncomfortable,” since it’s in keeping with a well-established pattern.
As for the supporting Arab democracy movements: Which one did the U.S. “support” when it really mattered? Not Tunisia, Bahrain or Egypt. Not Yemen. Not Saudi Arabia or Jordan. Certainly not Palestine. Syria? Not really. I guess you could argue that the Libya War is “supporting” something. But Steinhauer’s vision of the U.S. as ‘uncomfortably’ fitting its rejection of Palestinian autonomy within a prevailing policy of encouragement for Arab democracies is more media creation than diplomatic reality.
US Hypochrists and Judadaists.
Traditionally, the US would rather work with autocratic governments than with a participatory democracy. Historically, the US has overthrown more democracies than dictatorships. This is particularly evident when dealing with the Global South. Only when the political elites of a so call democracy seem to be in line with US objectives are they allowed to govern unmolested.
Traditionally the United states does not believe that the Palestinians are talking about anything coming close to our idea of a free democratic government.
“Traditionally the United states does not believe that the Palestinians are talking about anything coming close to our idea of a free democratic government.”
True. In the U.S. only millionaires with corporate backing can run for major office, the tweedle-dum, tweedle-dee system keeps debate and choices in a narrow spectrum, and when despite all that the people elect the wrong candidate, the Supreme Court selects a president.
Whereas when Palestinians held elections five years ago, voters accepted the results – while so-called democracies like the U.S., Canada and Israel, plus their agents (including corrupt Palestinians) immediately and steadfastly ignored and tried to undermine the winners.
It’s the same elsewhere. In Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, Haiti, Venezuela, etc., the U.S. hates “free democratic” elections when it can’t select the winner.